Featured The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

I'm sorry.

I didn't realize that you were not going to attend to the portrayal of the sacrifice but referring to the smells.

So, I'll follow along and see where you're going with this thinking.

 

Did you not read the quote from Colossians?

13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.​

The wrath did not remove judgment. The cross CANCELLED judgment.

Therefore, yes, PSA presents either an unclean Christ suffering from a member of the trinity or a clean Christ suffering from a member of the trinity, unjustly.

 

Are you presenting that the Christ became ungodly?

PSA has to agree that Christ became ungodly (unclean) or that a member of the trinity unjustly punished the Christ.

 

PSA doesn't demonstrate that, but Satisfaction and Victorious do certainly.

ONLY God has the authority to recognize and be satisfied with the sacrifice.

When God is presented the sacrifice that is satisfactory, there is no wrath, rather there is reconciliation.

PSA destroys the whole concept of the purity and holiness of both God and Christ.

 

If anything redefines the judgement and wrath of God, it is the PSA thinking.

Just as I showed in post # 134, above.

 

Never said that He wasn't.

But you have yet to show that God responded with wrath when any of the sacrifices were offered and they were worthy.

 

I never said that Christ was not our substitute, but that the word "substitute" is better understood in terms of God being satisfied. That the use of "substitute" carries far too much other agenda.

I devoted whole posts to presenting my view in this matter.

Are you trying to present Hebrews 10:27 as having to do with OT Sacrificial system as applied to and attended to by the Levitical priesthood?

Hebrews 10:

26If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think one deserves to be punished who has trampled on the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and insulted the Spirit of grace?​

From the Revelations:

1Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out on the earth the seven bowls of God’s wrath.”​

This is where God pours His wrath out upon all that profaned the blood of Christ, and trampled upon the Son of God, and insulted the Holy Spirit of Grace.

But, this doesn't pertain to the Sacrifices in the OT in which God was satisfied.

Besides, why, if God did pour out wrath upon the Son, would he care how folks treated Him, for would God have presented the example for all to follow by pouring out divine judgement?

...

Which sacrifices were banned from the alter?

You haven't presented anything that supports PSA teaching of divine judgement poured out by God upon a member of the trinity for that member being faithful to fulfill all the prophecy and satisfy the decrees of the Law.

I am really interested how you intend to support your thinking.

 

Often, there is the presentation that Christ was the substitute for the believer and suffered in the believer's place.

I have mentioned in previous posts that I am not in favor of the word "substitute" for the following reasons.

First , the term represents the thinking of an exchange that took place. On the surface this seems to be a correct view, however, in human exchange of goods and services, the exchange is always based upon equal value, or a quid pro quo.

Second, the term concerns a temporary arrangement. A substitute is not the original, but a replacement for a temporary resolve.

Third, the term does not Scripturally fit with what was accomplished by the Christ and the crucifixion.

Adam and Eve were provided a sacrifice

Abraham was provided sacrifice.

When God spoke of the Israeli sacrificial offerings, He gave very specific instructions and He even named the sacrifice and what it would represent to the people.

John records the Lord Jesus stating, "God so loved the creation that He GAVE ..."

God provided the Sacrifice. It was not a substitute but the archetype.

Therefore, I use the word "satisfaction."
Christ was the offering of God that would bring satisfactory resolution to the breach caused by the decrees of the Law that stood between man and God bringing reconciliation.

The compulsory sacrifice which was brought before the Lord by the High Priest had to meet specific qualifications, and no substitute was allowed.

It was a sin offering, and only the very best, purest, and unblemished could be used to satisfy the breach. Christ had no sin, and had no impurity. He was slain to satisfy, to resolve, to heal the breach caused by the violation of the decrees of the Law. The blood was used to forgive sin (the breach of the Law decrees) and the debt was nailed to the cross.

So, I find the word "satisfaction" far more fitting then "substitution" especially when it concerns the themes of the atonement.

 

And you just demonstrated that you have no idea what PSA teaches, in spite of multiple threads and multiple people explaining that this is a false view.

 

PSA teaches that the sinless One bore the sins of His elect ppl upon Himself and that the Father punished the Son for those sins. That by Him bearing this wrath for their sins, they will not have to bear this wrath themselves. All of this is via imputation of their sins. Imputation teaches that the one who has been imputed either Adam's guilt or Christ's righteousness, God treats them as if they had done what was imputed unto them. We stand righteous before the Father because Christ's righteousness has been imputed unto us, and God treats us as if we were the ones who lived the sinless perfect life the Christ did. We are declared righteous, justified in His sight by this imputed righteous.

On the other side, those who have been imputed Adam's guilt, God treats them as if they were the ones who did what Adam did in the Garden. This is why we see babies dying in the womb, in infancy, etc. Seeing that "the wages of sin is death"[Romans 6:23], how do these babies and infants die before they committed the first sin? Because they were in Adam and had been imputed Adam's guilt, and God dealt with them accordingly. Now, let us focus on Christ for a second. When Christ was imputed His elect ppl's sins, God treated Him as if He was the One who committed those sins. He was declared guilty. Imputation does not teach that whatever is imputed actually changes them, it does not. It only declares them either righteous or guilty. If imputation actually changed someone, then Christ who have become literally a sinner, and He is forever the sinless, spotless, impeccable, Lamb of God.

Look at these four things...

God is eternal. Jesus is God. Jesus died.
God is Spirit. Jesus is God. Jesus became flesh.
God is omnipresent. Jesus is God. Jesus could only be in one place at one time.
God is omniscient. Jesus is God. Jesus said only the Father knew the timing of the consummation of the ages.

The reason why I say this is that there are things that we hold to that are not easily explained. Just like PSA. How is it that God can die on a cross? How can God hurt, feel hunger, do # 1 and # 2, etc.? There are just way too many vss that attest to this being a biblical fact. And seeing they have been posted already, it'd be fruitless for me to post them again.

 

From Dr. Mounce's Interlinear for 'canceled'...

to anoint or smear over; hence, to wipe off or away, Rev. 7:17; 21:4; to blot out, obliterate, Col. 2:14; Rev. 3:5; met. to wipe out guilt, Acts 3:19

This is talking about expiation, the removal of one's guilt. Seeing that His death made the atonement, He paid their sin debt in full. And now that God's justice has been appeased, satisfied, satiated, placated, etc., He can now be Just and Justifier of all those who have faith in Christ. This does not bolster your stance.

 

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.[Philippians 2:8]

Christ, when He became flesh, was subject to everything that is human, minus a sin nature. But death was also an avoidable thing, seeing He was just as much human (fully) and just as much God (fully). Seeing that humans are subject to God's wrath when they stand before Him guilty, how could Christ have not stood before His Father in the same exact manner when He was imputed His elect ppl's sins and was declared guilty?

 

Yet another dishonest post. I have in fact defended PSA with scripture showing it is clear. You once again look over that and only focus on what you want to.


What you have failed and or refused to fo is actually engage the posts i have made full of scripture and showing your faulty claims. You then engage in attacks and obfuscation like the post I quoted here of yours.

Shows you dont have a case

 

Then tell me what YOU think PSA teaches.

There have been multiple threads on this subject, many times PSA has been presented, and NOT a single one has shown that my representation of the view is wrong except a handful and they leave out the cornerstone of that view in some attempt (imo) to make it more palatable.

Packer (whom when I was much younger I read and admired) used the words "divine judgement" had to be poured out upon the son.

Do you disagree, or is it that you don't like the extrapolation of that thinking that shows not only how weak it is but that it has not defense from the Scripture?

Demonstrate that you know PSA and that you can defend God's wrath poured out upon the Son is not error, that it is found in the Scriptures by both statement and picture type, and in doing so that I am misrepresenting the view or in your statement "that (I) have no idea what PSA teaches.

 

Yet, there is not a single Scripture of support that God punished the Son for those sins.

Yet, again, there is not a single Scripture of support that God punished the Son for those sins.

Then it is obvious He was not eternal. Jesus cannot be eternal and die UNLESS He is the as the first Adam before the fall, sinless, innocent, pure... And then God would have no cause to brutalize Him.

Certainly, He REMAINED 100% God except for the glory the Scriptures teach. He being both fully God and fully man in union. Therefore, God cannot punish God. Such thinking is not Scriptural.

This is not Scriptural, for do they not present that He was the authority and held all things under His power and control while on this earth? If Jesus was God, He did not diminish any of His attributes EXCEPT His glory.

This is true, but it has nothing to do with PSA thinking.

If you have questions and view PSA as presenting that questionable, then it cannot be from the Scriptures.
One should be able to prove from the Scriptures all that they hold as foundational.

PSA is extremely weak at best and error when it is presented.

 

And this obliterates PSA thinking.

God, according to Colossians 2, had the Law, and humanity had violated the decrees of the law. The Christ "canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! "

There was no wrath of God needed at the Cross. For just as the temporary atonement sacrifice of the OT satisfied (appeased, propitiated, ...) God, so did the Christ of the Cross.

The clean made the unclean clean, and if the Christ had become unclean in a manner that God was obliged to brutalize Him, then He cannot be the one who makes that which is unclean, clean.